Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

6

There are a couple of different ways to answer your first question. I will attempt an answer from a linguistics perspective, specifically with regards to the lexical aspect of the verb in question. The dominant perspective on lexical aspect of verb tenses for the last few decades has been Actionsart. This deals with how the verb interacts with time. ...


5

The aorist tense "presents an occurrence in summary, viewed as a whole from the outside, without regard for the internal make-up of the occurrence."1 Wallace explains, This contrasts with the present and imperfect, which portray the action as an ongoing process. It may be helpful to think of the aorist as taking a snapshot of the action while the ...


5

It's a great question, and the truth is that the sentence is fairly ambiguous despite attempts to translate it otherwise (as in the ChaBaD translation brought in @crownjewel82's answer). Here's the verse - note that the closest we get to punctuation are the cantillation marks, which have a zaqef qaton (a minor disjunctive, like a comma or semicolon) at the ...


4

וְשֶׂ֣רֶט לָנֶ֗פֶשׁ לֹ֤א תִתְּנוּ֙ בִּבְשַׂרְכֶ֔ם וּכְתֹ֣בֶת קַֽעֲקַ֔ע לֹ֥א תִתְּנ֖וּ בָּכֶ֑ם אֲנִ֖י יְהוָֽה Grammatically speaking, "the dead" isn't even mentioned in the original Hebrew text. It was simply "the soul." In Hebraic thought, the soul is the unified body and spirit. The soul can be dead, or the soul can be alive. The text doesn't say one ...


4

This is the same phrase that appears in Ex 34:6, the interaction between God and Moshe after the golden calf. In both places אֶ֖רֶךְ אַפַּ֣יִם is sometimes translated "slow to anger" (though there is no infinitive verb there) and sometimes "long-suffering". אֶ֖רֶךְ is Strong's H750, "prolong, lengthen, draw out" (etc). אַפַּ֣יִם is H639. The lexicon ...


4

"asher" is used with past-tense hence making it past-tensive "ahavti" with "kametz" alef and hey properly means past-tense as well however it can be used as ongoing past-tense which applies in the present which as you pointed out its the easiest understandable meaning now "וְאֶשְׁתַּֽעֲשַׁ֥ע" is past and present tense (ongoing past-tense almost like ...


4

Excellent question. Strong has good references: אני ,אנכי. Gesenius discusses this here at the beginning and in the footnotes. It appears that אנכי is the more "original", and אני is a derived, localised form, based both on comparison to other languages, and the fact that אנכי is more common in earlier texts, and becomes less so in later texts. ...


4

Those are adjectives, not pronouns. They are plural neuter nominatives. "And all those who are mine are yours, and all of yours are mine..." BibleHub is right. It does jive with the KJV: because they are adjectives and not pronouns, the plural they carry is the plural of the things they are modifying. In other words, they act like other plural adjectives. ...


3

The forms you likely learned are pronouns: 1st person, singular number (equivalent to English "I," "me") ἐγώ μου, ἐμοῦ μοι, ἐμοἰ με, ἐμέ 2nd person, singular number (equivalent to English "you") σύ σου, σοῦ σοι, σοί σε, σέ However, the forms in John 17:10 are indeed adjectives, as Kazark mentioned, based on ...


3

This verse has a parallel in Matt. 26:46, in which the same verb ἄγωμεν occurs. The particular conjugation ἄγωμεν also occurs in the following verses. It is the equivalent of the English phrase, "Let's go..." Mark 1:38 John 11:7 John 11:15 John 14:31 Thayer describes this usage sense as intransitive (lacking a direct object).1 However, it can be followed ...


3

Biblical Hebrew doesn't have tense, it has aspect. English doesn't have aspect, it has tense. So, translators are in a pickle. The 'perfect' aspect (exemplified by אָהָֽבְתִּי) is about completion, not point-in-time. However, this is poetry. In poetic BH poetry, just about every rule gets bent sooner or later in favor 'what it sounds like'. So translators ...


3

We need to explore the word אף more closely. It has two general meanings: nose, face, nostril (Genesis 2:7, Proverbs 30:33, Genesis 28:12, Samuel I 25:23, Chronicles II 7:3) and anger (Deuteronomy 29:27, Proverbs 30:33, Daniel 11:20, Zephaniah 2:2, Genesis 30:2). Why this is the case is left to your interpretation. On this point I agree with this answer - ...


3

Short Answer: Yes, all of the verbs are aorist. In fact, they are all identical in all of the following ways: Part of Speech: Verb Tense: Aorist Mood: Indicative Voice: Active Person: 3rd Person Number: Singular Here they are, for reference: προέγνω (he foreknew) προώρισεν (he predestined) προώρισεν (he predestined #2) ἐκάλεσεν (he called) ...


3

To the grammarian it may seem like beating a dead horse to protest that the aorist does not necessarily reflect the nature of the action or event it covers. But the horse is not dead; he is very much alive and cavorting rather freely in exegetical and theological pastures. The fallacy of "theology in the aorist tense" stubbornly persists, even in the ...


3

Robertson says, "See Isaiah 66:24." Reading Isaiah 66:24: Then they will go forth and look On the corpses of the men Who have transgressed against Me. For their worm will not die And their fire will not be quenched; And they will be an abhorrence to all mankind. ...makes it pretty clear that "their" refers to "the men who have transgressed against ...


3

The verb דִּבֵּר (dibber), which is conjugated in binyan Pi'el, is commonly followed by prepositions to indicate the person to or with whom the speaker is speaking. For example, אֶל (Gen. 8:15), לְ (Jdg. 14:7), עִם (Gen. 31:29), אֵת (Gen. 23:8), עַל (Jer. 6:10), and of course, בְּ (Hab. 2:1). In Num. 12:1 and 12:8, the context implies that Aharon and Miryam ...


3

The preposition ב can be translated in many different ways (in, with, through, against, while, when, for, by etc.) depending on how it functions in its context. In num 12:1 it makes good sense to translate it as "against" but the case could be made for translating it as simply "to" or "with." In v2, the case could be made for translating it as simply "to ...


3

The translation from chabad.org makes things a bit clearer. The Hebrew text is available there as is a commentary on the text. You shall not make cuts in your flesh for a person [who died]. You shall not etch a tattoo on yourselves. I am the Lord. It's easy to see that there are two separate sentences containing two distinct commands. The first is ...


2

We find even within scripture that there existed a heathen practice of cutting the flesh as part of an attempt to appeal to the gods, a kind of unholy sacrifice if you will. So they shouted louder and slashed themselves with swords and spears, as was their custom, until their blood flowed. (NIV 1 Kings 18:28) There are other references to cuttings ...


2

Frankly, I think it is a scribal error. Examination of the Samaritan Pentateuch reveals עלת instead of עלה. See: Blayney, Benjamini: Pentateuchus Hebraeo-Samaritanus, via Google Books, p. 415.


2

If you feel that עולה תמיד us the expected form then the second form is simply extended use of the construct form. Biblical Hebrew is fluid and is often flexible with the grammatical constructs, a sort of linguistic poetic licence (although usually adopted for reasons of preferential rhythm, and not arbitrarily). For a few examples where the construct state ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible